Appeal 3363621
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
5 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
a detached garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
[address] is a residential cul-de-sac consisting of modern two storey detached and semi-detached properties with open frontages on the edge of an established residential area. In general garages on the close have pitched roofs and are discreetly positioned to the side of properties at the end of driveways and are therefore inconspicuous in the street scene.
[site address] is prominently located and is visible from the junction with [address]. The proposed garage would be located within an open front garden and parking area and would be forward of the front elevations of 27 – [address]. As a result, it would be highly prominent within the street scene. Whilst it would be set back from the edge of the highway, it would dominate the front garden of the appeal property and the street scene. Furthermore, it would have a hipped roof which would be at odds with the host property and the prevailing character of the close where hipped roofs are not a common feature.
Consequently, the proposal would be an incongruous addition which would harm the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings in conflict with Policy SD4 of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan 2018 which seeks to ensure that development is of a high standard.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, the proposal is contrary to the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal is dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 3511No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 23 May 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 19 May 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3363621
- Application reference
- R/2024/0679/FF
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000003
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- No
- Historic building grant made
- No
- Relates to a conservation area
- No
- Flooding is an issue
- No
- Site within an AONB
- No
- Site within an SSSI
- No
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 7 April 2025
- Valid date
- 7 April 2025
- Start date
- 11 April 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 17 January 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 23 May 2025
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- No
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 69953
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21